The first order of things

I don't mind arrogance.  I recognize the strategy, especially for those who would lead a cause or try to become a symbol for change.  I also don't mind so-called arrogance in those whose confidence derives from higher levels of education, who have read widely about a subject and know the percentage chance of something being true or of something being plausibly true due to research.

The link here connects to a teacher's resignation letter.  It's one of the longest ones I've ever read because she was trying to lead a cause.  I think something got lost in translation, if her motive was to cause change, because of the blah-blah-blah effect of the length of the letter.  But more than the arrogance that comes from the righteous cause she wants to lead is the fact that she names her profession as an English teacher.  Now, my thinking is that if a person wants to name an area of expertise (in her case, only an area of experience) and then launch a tirade against "the system," then she better have her own craft of English in perfect order.  If not, she is no better than the system she claims is broken.  Her own area of teaching needs to have some additions to her own bank of knowledge.

My mother used to explain to me that I should not criticize someone else (implied something else, like a system) unless I had my own ducks in a row.  Otherwise, it would be the same as the pot calling the kettle black. That's a good saying to know.  It has kept me in touch with my roots.  I recall also some other good, even if ancient, advice from when I was young.  Why try to remove the speck from someone else's eye when you can't see past the log in your own eye?  I'm just thinking that this woman needs to apply these principles before she starts lashing out.

In this teacher's lengthy letter, she makes the following statement as she compares students she taught before the advent of NCLB with those she taught after the initiative.

... my students from five to eleven years ago still had a sense of pride in whom they were and a self-confidence in whom they would become someday.

Here's the log in her eye: in whom they were and  in whom they would become.  In whom of course is a possibility in English, but only if whom is the only word following the preposition.  In the case of a clause following the preposition, which is a noun slot, the choice for who or whom depends on the pronoun's use in the clause. In the two clauses this teacher uses, the choice should be who since on both occasions it appears as the predicate nominative after the verbs of being and becoming.

Because she wants to cast stones instead of focusing on her own craft, this woman's words fall on my deaf ears.  First remove the log from your own eye, then remove the speck from someone else's.  It's the first order of things.  Violate it, and you should know that people are seeing your lips move, but not hearing a word!